With Adelson ready to invest in Trump, who's the 'puppet' now?

Now that Donald Trump has abandoned months of boasts about “self-funding,” he’s going to need some Republican mega-donors to help finance the Republican’s general-election campaign. The New York Times reports that one especially notable contributor is already eager to play a role.

The casino magnate Sheldon G. Adelson told Donald J. Trump in a private meeting last week that he was willing to contribute more to help elect him than he has to any previous campaign, a sum that could exceed $100 million, according to two Republicans with direct knowledge of Mr. Adelson’s commitment.

 

As significant, Mr. Adelson, a billionaire based in Las Vegas, has decided that he will significantly scale back his giving to congressional Republicans and direct most of his contributions to groups dedicated to Mr. Trump’s campaign.

The article noted that it’s unclear exactly how Adelson will make his investment, and the casino magnate and his team “are still uncertain about which super PAC to use as their vehicle for the bulk of the contributions.”

 

That said, Trump and Adelson met last week; the candidate said he’s “dedicated to protecting Israel’s security,” and Adelson agreed soon after to spent as much as $100 million to make the former reality-show host the president of the United States.

 

The punch-line, however, is something Trump said on Twitter in October: “Sheldon Adelson is looking to give big dollars to (Sen. Marco Rubio) because he feels he can mold him into his perfect little puppet.”

 

At the time, the Florida senator was receiving quite a bit of support from GOP mega-donors, and Adelson appeared to be on board with Team Rubio – a dynamic Trump was eager to mock. Indeed, the idea that the senator was part of a corrupt system in which wealthy interests buy candidates in order to make them “puppets” was at the heart of Trump’s message.

 

The key word in that sentence, however, is “was.”

 

As we discussed last week, Trump assured voters for months that he’s “self-funding” his campaign, and it was a powerful selling point. He insisted campaign contributions have a corrupting effect on public officials – Trump said he knew it because he was among the wealthy donors doing the buying – but he’s above all of this ugliness because he relies solely on his own checkbook. Americans wouldn’t have to worry about fat-cat donors telling Trump what to do because he doesn’t want – and doesn’t take – their money.

 

And yet, there was Trump telling Sheldon Adelson what he wanted to hear during a private discussion last week, which was followed soon after by the donor’s decision to be quite generous towards the presumptive Republican nominee.

 

Months of rhetoric about the corrupting influence of campaign contributions has been wiped away with amazing efficiency, and in the process, arguably the most compelling pillar of Trump’s entire candidacy has been removed.

How Journos are marketing Trump. 
 

— NassimNicholasTaleb (@nntaleb) May 15, 2016

 

Comparing outcomes and foreign policy for Trump vs Hillary in a more rigorous way 

— NassimNicholasTaleb (@nntaleb) May 15, 2016

 kurtster wrote: 
Who do you think let them in?

 kurtster wrote: 
i read the road signs and understand them. I don't tilt at windmills for the sport of it. I choose wisely, either with my dollars or with my feet.

Then be part of the solution. Be the care you want in the change around you. We find our comfort zones or we don't. If we don't, we adapt or keep moving. If we do, we put down roots and make things better. Bring in our comforts, music, foods, beliefs.

You can choose to stand your ground and fight for the beachfront you have. But the tides will eventually move that beachfront and no matter what you do, water will win.

 BlueHeronDruid wrote: 

 BlueHeronDruid wrote: 
The place you want to move to says no one under 55 and you're 45.  The place says no pets and you have pets.  What do you do ? 

Different states have different laws.  Want to smoke cannabis without repercussions ?  Can't do it everywhere.  Its about making choices.  Gotta find the place that sees what is important to you the same way and move there, if you are able to, if you are able to find that ideal place.

Change is inevitable.  But I have found that change that happens overnight without planning and consideration is neither good nor lasting.  Change needs to be done carefully.  I am sick and tired of hearing about unintended consequences from piss poor planning. 

 aflanigan wrote: 
And who let them in ?  They got here across the Bering Land Bridge from Asia.

 kcar wrote: 
People have complaining about it all my life and I'm in my 60's.  But I come from a border state.  Cesar Chavez was all about protecting American farm workers from illegals.  The California Table Grape Boycott is the reference to this.  This is what I grew up with.

This is not something new.   People who don't live in border states don't know WTF is and has been going on for decades.  They are just now beginning to find out.

There is no point in even talking about fixing what is wrong until the borders are secured.  There are enough laws on the books already.  Fix the border, then the conversation can begin on what to do with those who are already here.  In the meantime, let's use the laws we already have for a change.  No we cannot deport everyone.  But until we have a viable border, how can we talk about who stays ?  Its meaningless.

I have no problem with growth and change, but it has to be planned for and orderly so as not to cause pain to those already here. 

 kurtster wrote: 
This argument strikes me as a typical example of the tired "raise the bridge to keep undesirables off the island now that we're here" hypocrisy. Why should having your genes circulating around the gene pool in a country your forebears invaded without invitation for a set number of years/decades/centuries entitle you to exemption from the standard you're trying to apply to others?



 

 kurtster wrote: 
I can understand your point of view, I think. I don't think the illegal immigrants themselves are complaining about this issue as much as the American citizens who feel threatened job-wise are. 

This issue shouldn't have turned into a major one. We should have looked at federal policy during prosperous times, when immigration was peaking, and updated it. I told my parents years ago that people wouldn't complain about illegal immigrants until the economy went south.

I think that there should be a path to citizenship for those already here and contributing to society. As far as I can tell, most of the illegal immigrants here want to assimilate into American society and aren't keen to hive off into a re-creation of their past worlds. The notion that shariah law is spreading through the Midwest is hysterically goofy. 

It'd be nice if Trump offered some real ideas about illegal immigration but he just wants to bluster like some drunk at the bar about The Wall.  
BlueHeronDruid wrote:  
True. America has gone through waves, large and small, of immigration. The social and cultural fabric of this country is constantly changing and we've regularly gone through periods of anti-immigrant sentiment. Signs reading "Irish need not apply" seem quaint now, but they were deadly serious in their time. 

 kurtster wrote:
It's not that simple. It really isn't.

We live in a gated community. (For the record, gate is open 6a to 6p weekdays, closed weekends.) It's not what we were looking for, but what we fell in love with, and what we could afford. The gate doesn't do much for me (as you know, I have some fierce-sounding dogs) though I appreciate the element it keeps off our private beach. Yes, I've seen drug deals go down there. Yes, I've encountered someone smoking meth. It happens. Our beach is a private and attractive nuisance, and getting in the gate is as easy as drafting the car in front of you.

But as the demographics change here (younger people moving in, raising children, as opposed to the founding "vacation home" retirees) so do the HOA R&Rs. I think that someday we'll be allowed to have chickens. Discreet fences around the food we would like to grow for ourselves and not the black-tailed deer.

Change can be good but ultimately is inevitable. Every legal immigrant, every coming-of-age citizen, is poised to bring change. We can either embrace it and shepherd it, or fear it and try to kill it. I vote the former. It isn't always happiness and light. But it is the way of the world. Find me a place where that hasn't happened.

 kcar wrote: 
I can only speak for myself on this one.  I give a rat's ass about what this country is and what it means.  My family arrived in Maine in 1640, 136 years before the revolution.  Is that long enough to say my family is from America and not somewhere else ?  I'm not angry with the illegals per se, except for their bitching and complaining about how they are treated.  Trespassers bitching, really ?   Who I am angry with are those who let them in.  Those who refuse to enforce the laws and protect our borders.

You may come in through the front door, but eff those who break in through the side window.  Come here for what we already are, not to change us.  We do not need people who think that anyplace is better than where they are presently.   Am I supposed to believe that those who get here illegally care about those who are here already ?  Really ?   Find another place.  Its as simple as that.

 muzik wrote: 
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Also, for people with working brains.

Ugh.  Rumor has it he's coming to our Big Sky state...shall I paint a protest sign?  Should it stick up for Immigrants?  Woman? Physically disabled? Blacks?  Mexicans?  Muslims?  Big Sky for Big Signs!  

 kurtster wrote: 
Loved the Addams Family clip. You like train wrecks? You'll get a bunch of them with Trump. Republicans love to call Carter the worst President and say he was unprepared. Trump has no policies. He has no idea how completely unprepared he is. 

The man's ego has gotten away from him. I see his speeches and I see an older version of Charlie Sheen during his manic phase. 

 kurtster wrote:  
I'd like to see Hillary's transcripts as well. But if there were bombshell statements—equivalent to Romney's 47% remark— in them, people in the audience for those speeches would have the press let know a long time ago. 

I doubt you'll see Trump's returns. 
rotekz wrote:
  
I don't give a crap about the big picture. The big picture isn't going to keep Americans from sliding into poverty or help them afford college and health care. 

Trump wants to be President. How is he going to address the problems we have today? He hasn't said because he doesn't know. 

Trump is bluffing. 

Frankly, I don't think most Trump supporters give a toss about culture. They want their jobs and economic future back. Their anger at illegal immigrants and China and trade is based on perceived threats to their jobs. 

Rotekz, the West has been declining and falling for centuries. It'll be around long after you and I are gone. 

"Trump understands this and is the only person that can save America and beyond that, Western civilization." 

Who knew that the Son of God would look so ridiculous, puffy and old during his Second Coming. 

I'm sorry, I can no longer take you seriously. I doubt there's anything that anyone can say to keep you from swilling the Kool-Aid. 

 kurtster wrote:
Nah, it's called making sh!t up as you go along. Hence Trump.

Besides, last time I heard you were a single issue voter. "He's gonna build a beautiful wall. That's all I need to know!"*
* Very loosely paraphrased

 kurtster wrote: 
When you're reduced to tossing out unsubstantiated accusations, it's time to consider the Law of Holes.

 R_P wrote: 
It's the nuance of rhetoric.  It's consistent with that in mind.

I learned that from you, after all.  

 haresfur wrote: 
And, I'd like to know what's in Hillary's transcripts from her speeches to Goldman Sachs, etal.

Trump has said he will release his taxes after his audit is done.  We'll never see Hillary's transcripts.